What About NKJV?

Why does it cast doubt on the MT?

 

Rufus1611:

:laugh: :laugh: There was a questionare someone posted recently on the BB which would tell you if you were reformed, fundamentalist, ect.
I took it and guess what?

I was a fundamentalist according to the test!

But they didn't ask which Bible version I use.:laugh:

 

And it's nothing more than guesswork to label a given 'set' of mss corrupt, as none of us were there when they were written...indeed we don't know who wrote mosta them. There's as much chance for the Byz mss to be corrupt as there is for any others.

 

If I, as a teacher, presented my students with information about a given topic and inserted, "Many learned men think that my position is wrong," it wouldn't take long before my students would desire to be taught by the other "learned men."

If I am presenting information that I am confident is accurate and based upon many witnesses and clear teaching of scholars throughout academia, then I need not reference what other men who disagree may think.

 

Actually it is called textual criticism. It is nothing more than guesswork to assume that older is more accurate. It is pure conjecture to say that the minority readings are the most reliable.

There is chance that mss within the family of Byzantine may be corrupted to a degree, but it would be foolish to ignore the family as a whole, or to regard the family simply as one witness relative to counting as the modern textual critics do.

 

I've seen five
scriptures quoted in this thread. A couple of people were
even on topic.

I'm gonna go :BangHead: :tear:

 

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (KJV)

Matthew 7:14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (NKJV)

Is the way "difficult" or "narrow?" If we work harder can we acheive eternal life? Or, is the way tapered and funneled to the one and only Way?

There's six Ed. :thumbs:

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I submit some actual comparitive examples between the KJV and NKJV. I trust this will begin to show that they very different. I am not offerring an opinion here as to which may be right or may be wrong. I am just trying point out that they are not the same.

I Samuel 13:21

Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads. (KJV)

and the charge for a sharpening was a pim for the plowshares, the mattocks, the forks, and the axes, and to set the points of the goads. (NKJV)​

2 Samuel 14:14

For we must needs die, and [are] as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect [any] person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him. (KJV)

For we will surely die and become like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. Yet God does not take away a life; but He devises means, so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him. (NKJV)​

Acts 17:22

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, [Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. (KJV)

Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; (NKJV)​

 

First, I think you are pulling this verse out of context. The next verses admonish--

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? ​

Are these comments that would be directed toward the lost? Just a little more proof that this whole passage really given to the followers of Christ. The admonishment preceding verse 14 --

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. ​

The spiritually lost cannot truly call Him "Father" can they? So also, verse 14 is not about finding salvation, its about us living a proper Christian life.

Secondly, grammatically it isn't a simple matter of either "difficult" or "narrow". I have written about this verse recently in another thread, so I will just state again that the meaning is both "narrow" and "difficult"; that is, it is so narrow that it is difficult to pass through (a tight 'squeeze').

 

In honor of Ed's request and in dedication to the original post...
---
A KJV believer believes that salvation is a binary issue. There are those that perish and those that are saved....

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." - 1 Corinthians 1:18 (KJV)​

An NKJVer believes that salvation and damnation is a process. There are those that are perishing and those that are being saved...

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." - 1 Corinthians 1:18 (NKJV) ​

---
Those who like to make arguments for piercing their nose don't like the KJV...

"And I asked her, and said, Whose daughter art thou? And she said, the daughter of Bethuel, Nahor's son, whom Milcah bare unto him: and I put the earring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands." - Genesis 24:47 (KJV)​

Those that like to be Canaanites prefer the NKJV...

Then I asked her, and said, ‘Whose daughter are you?’ And she said, ‘The daughter of Bethuel, Nahor’s son, whom Milcah bore to him.’ So I put the nose ring on her nose and the bracelets on her wrists." - Genesis 24:47 (NKJV)
​

---
A KJV is the Bible for the "chauvinists" for they believe that women are to be help meets to the men...

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." - Genesis 2:18​

The NKJV is the Bible for the feminists as the woman was made to be "comparable" to man...

"And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." - Genesis 2:18 (NKJV)​

---
The KJV believer is one who freely gives himself to God and finds glory in being a servant to God...

"But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." - Romans 6:22 (KJV)​

An NKJV believer believes in slavery...

"But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life." - Romans 6:22 (NKJV)​

---
There are many more examples like these and thus, the problems I have related to the NKJV is, it is a very different book from the KJV and says very different things and if I am to believe that both came from the same God, then I have to believe that God is the author of confusion.

 

Actually, I believe you are describing preaching rather than teaching. In a teaching setting it is proper and good to present the other views. Then to deal with them from a position of truth. This will help the students not make the same mistakes in the future. I say this in reference to the teaching situation, not necessarily confined to the versions debates.

Bro Tony

 

Act 17:22 (KJV1611 Edition):
Then Paul stood in the mids of Mars-hill,
and said, Yee men of Athens,
I perceiue that in all things yee are too superstitious.

Webster's; 1828 Dictionary:
//SUPERSTI'TIOUS, a. [L. superstitiosus.]

//1. Over scrupulous and rigid in religious observances;
addicted to superstition; full of idle fancies and scruples
in regard to religion; as superstitious people.//

Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus
and said, "Men of Athens,
I perceive that in all things you are very religious; (NKJV)

dictionary.com:
Religous
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.

do a research of RELIGOUS at:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=religious

the results are interesting.
The Urban Dictionary allows people to give a definition
and other people vote on how good it is.

for RELIGOUS there is no direct definition,
but the most popular definition only has TWO VOTES
AGAINST IT

Here is what people really think

 

New KJV on Acts 7:5 said, "God," but NASV and NIV agree with the KJV saying, "he" in the Greek. "God" was not found in the Greek text. The NKJV added "God" on this verse without mnanuscripts.

 

This is too funny. Now the NKJV is using "God" too much. Hey Askjo did you noticed it was italizied? And are you ready to hold the KJV to the same standard? Remember what is good for the goose is good for the gander. He goes, although I am sure it will fall on deaf ears...

The KJV in Romans 6:2 says "God forbid" when God forbid is not found in the Greek text. The KJV added "God forbid" in this verse without manuscripts. The manuscripts used by the KJV translators translated from the Greek to the English read..."May it not be!"

 

Rufus_1611: [quotae]The KJV believer is one who freely gives himself to God and finds glory in being a servant to God...

"But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." - Romans 6:22 (KJV)

An NKJV believer believes in slavery...


"But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life." - Romans 6:22 (NKJV)[/quote]

That is absurd.
The closest translation both in 1611 and
2007 is 'slave'.
The lie of the KJVs promoted the
acceptance of slavery; the truth of the NKJV
demotes the acceptance of slavery.
In 1611 slavery was practiced worldwide.
In 2007 only Muslim countries tolerate slavery.

If you aren't a slave of Jesus yet, you
might want to redo the first works.

"Free from sin" has little contrast with the KJVs
use of 'servant' - much contrast with the
nKJV 'slave'. Perchance the KJVs
are for those who just got a tad of salvation
and not the whole thing???

 

If you look closely you will see that the NKJV has the word "God" in italics, meaning that it was added to the text.

"Words or phrases in italics indicate expressions in the original language which require clarification by additional English words, as also done throughout the history of the King James Bible."
The New King James Version Preface

The ESV is often guilty of the same type of addition; rather than italicise, they make a footnote to show when the addition was made.

In the ESV's introduction the notes and this type of addition is explained:
"Notes clarifying when the referent for a pronoun has been supplied in the English text, such as: “Greek he” (see, e.g., Mark 1:43)."

Rob

 

The lie of the KJVs promoted slavery? Are you calling God a liar or are you saying the KJVs are not the word of God? Perhaps you are becoming a NKJVo?

 

Most early English versions had "God forbid", as do many modern versions still, in all or at least some places, where this idoim occurs. The Greek words in the NT for "God" and "forbid" do not need to present for this expression in 1611 to be a proper literal translation which carries both the meaning and the forse of the original thought. I think that it is neither fair nor accurate to criticize the KJV over this rendering.

 

Askjo, please see post #54.... Are you willing to admit by your own standards that the KJV does not stand up? If it is wrong for the NKJV translators to do it, then is it not also wrong that the KJV translators did it?

Bro Tony

 

Not my point to criticize the KJV over this, I have no problem with it. But if it is wrong to criticize the NKJV for using an italizied "God" where the Greek says he, then it is just as wrong for the KJV or any other version to add "God forbid" where the Greek translation should be "May it never be". Why that is dynamic equivalence, and most KJVOest would have a fit before admitting such in the KJV.